To:
"Jim Bound" <seamus@bit-net.com>, "James Aldridge" <jhma@KPNQwest.net>
Cc:
"pdeblanc@usvi. net" <pdeblanc@usvi.net>, "@Quasar" <shore@quasar.net>, "orobles@nic. mx" <orobles@nic.mx>, "Elisabeth. Porteneuve@cetp. ipsl. fr" <Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr>, "edyson@edventure. com" <edyson@edventure.com>, "Eric. Menge@sba. gov" <Eric.Menge@sba.gov>, "JandL" <jandl@jandl.com>, "Jay@Fenello. com" <Jay@Fenello.com>, <Jeff.Neuman@NeuLevel.com>, "joppenheimer@icbtollfree. com" <joppenheimer@icbtollfree.com>, "krose@ntia. doc. gov" <krose@ntia.doc.gov>, "mcade@att. com" <mcade@att.com>, "mueller@syr. edu" <mueller@syr.edu>, <Woeber@CC.UniVie.ac.at>, <smlee@i-names.co.kr>, <Sabine.Jaume@renater.fr>, <rbeca@ctc.cl>, "mouhamet@sonatel. sn" <mouhamet@sonatel.sn>, "junsec@wide. ad. jp" <junsec@wide.ad.jp>, "jplano@quorum. com. ar" <jplano@quorum.com.ar>, <jianping@sea.net.edu.cn>, "hph@online. no" <hph@online.no>, "gvaldez@nic. mx" <gvaldez@nic.mx>, "cjw@remarque. org" <cjw@remarque.org>, <barbara@gblx.net>, <arano@byd.ocn.ad.jp>, "ant@hivemind. net" <ant@hivemind.net>, <glaser@fapesp.br>, "vint cerf" <vcerf@MCI.NET>, "pindar@HK. Super. NET" <pindar@HK.Super.NET>, "linda@icann. org" <linda@icann.org>, "karl@cavebear. com" <karl@cavebear.com>, "quaynor@ghana. com" <quaynor@ghana.com>, "andy@ccc. de" <andy@ccc.de>, "shkyong@kgsm. kaist. ac. kr" <shkyong@kgsm.kaist.ac.kr>, "hans@icann. org" <hans@icann.org>, "mkatoh@mkatoh. net" <mkatoh@mkatoh.net>, "ken. fockler@sympatico. ca" <ken.fockler@sympatico.ca>, "f. fitzsimmons@att. net" <f.fitzsimmons@att.net>, "Amadeu@nominalia. com" <Amadeu@nominalia.com>, <dnsop@cafax.se>, <ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com>, <namedroppers@ops.ietf.org>, <ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com>, "Matt Crawford" <crawdad@fnal.gov>
From:
"JIM R FLEMING" <JimFleming@prodigy.net>
Date:
Tue, 7 Aug 2001 12:36:08 -0500
Sender:
owner-dnsop@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: (ngtrans) Joint DNSEXT & NGTRANS summary
----- Original Message -----
From: "James Aldridge" <jhma@KPNQwest.net>
To: "Jim Bound" <seamus@bit-net.com>
Cc: "Matt Crawford" <crawdad@fnal.gov>; <ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com>;
<namedroppers@ops.ietf.org>; <ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com>; <dnsop@cafax.se>
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2001 5:34 AM
Subject: Re: (ngtrans) Joint DNSEXT & NGTRANS summary
> Jim Bound wrote:
> > I felt consensus for number 3 is my input.
>
> That was my view too. There certainly seemed to be consensus for using
AAAA
> records for production and deprecating A6 records (either as experimental
or
> historic)
>
> --James
>
> >
> > /jim
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 7 Aug 2001, Matt Crawford wrote:
> >
> > > I have overheard nearly opposite outcomes quoted by random people
> > > in the halls, and some of the joint co-chairs (all the ones I've
> > > asked so far) seem reluctant to say anything substantive in public
> > > about the outcome of the joint dnsext/ngtrans meeting. I know there
> > > are some interested parties who were not present and I have no idea
> > > whether or how well they heard it on the mbone. So, here's my
> > > view from the floor ... other views would be welcome, the sooner
> > > the better.
> > >
> > > There was a lot of discussion, culminating with a "hum" on the
> > > following four choices:
> > >
> > > 1. Deploy A6 in full panoply, synthesize AAAA for transition period
> > > 2. Deploy A6 conservatively ("A6 0"), synthesize as above
> > > 3. Reclassify A6 as experimental, use AAAA for production
> > > 4. Reclasify A6 as historic, use AAAA for production.
> > >
> > > The relative volumes of the hum seemed to be 3 > 2 > 1 > 4, by all
> > > accounts. There was quite obviously no consensus (i.e., unanimity)
> > > or rough consensus (in the usual IETF sense of near-unanimity). It
> > > could not even be concluded that the loudest hum represented a
> > > majority of those voicing an opinion.
> > >
> > > The difference in impressions taken away, therefore, I would account
> > > for by differences in opinion about whether the preference of a
> > > plurality, possibly a slim majority, represent a decision to alter the
> > > status quo. (That being A6 on the standards track.)
> > >
> > >
> >
AAAA is the choice for IPv16 "production".
Does it matter what A6 is called ? (historic, toy, experimental, ?)
Maybe A6 should become an ICANN item ?
ICANN calls things "test-beds", when they are not production.
For example, all the ICANN TLDs are considered "test-bed".
They are likely years away from "production" TLDs.
The "toy" IPv4 Internet is a sewer.
IPv8 is designed to be a swamp to cover the sewer.
IPv16 is the "high-ground"....
...here are some links...
Jim Fleming
Why gamble with a .BIZ Lottery? Start a real .BIZ Today !
http://www.DOT-BIZ.com
http://www.BIZ.Registry
0:212 - BIZ World
http://www.unir.com/images/architech.gif
http://www.unir.com/images/address.gif
http://www.unir.com/images/headers.gif
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
http://msdn.microsoft.com/downloads/sdks/platform/tpipv6/start.asp
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12213.html
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12223.html